[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]
Thursday, April 18, 1996
.1107 
[English]
The Chairman: I call the meeting to order.
Good morning, colleagues. As you know, we tried to get the meeting started for 10:30 a.m., but because of scheduling conflicts with the room it was impossible.
Mr. Kingsley and the officials from Elections Canada are present and have kindly agreed to step aside for a moment or two.
You are reminded that this morning is the main estimates for Elections Canada, which aren't expected to take a lot of time because we have Elections Canada coming back in a week or so on a number of other projects. I've spoken with a number of you individually, and it's agreed that we're going to deal with the rules or the terms of reference for the Jacob issue that's before the committee.
Colleagues, on your behalf I'm also happy to welcome to the table Mr. Joe Maingot. Most of you have had an opportunity to shake his hand this morning. Mr. Maingot is a former law clerk of the House. I believe Ms Davidson replaced you, is that correct?
Mr. Joseph Maingot (Consultant to the Committee): In time.
The Chairman: He is the author of Parliamentary Privilege in Canada and just left the Law Reform Commission.
Welcome to this committee, Mr. Maingot.
Mr. Maingot: Thank you.
The Chairman: Mr. Boudria, could I call upon you to open?
[Translation]
Mr. Boudria (Glengarry - Prescott - Russell): Perhaps it should be Mr. Bellehumeur rather than myself. We met informally yesterday afternoon to discuss Mr. Bellehumeur's motion, and we added a few words to the one I had moved in order to make it more acceptable to him. I hope these are the right words.
Mr. Bellehumeur (Berthier - Montcalm): He addressed the issues we raised on March 28th, 1996.
Mr. Boudria: It is under item B of today's agenda. I don't know if the other members have had time to look at it.
.1110
Yesterday, I asked the Clerk to send a copy to members of the Reform Party. I suppose they have had time to look at it. As for yourself, Mr. Chairman, you read it yesterday.
I thought the version under item C was adequate, but the new one, with the addition, is even better. It's a good compromise between both motions.
I am ready to support it. Mr. Bellehumeur or I can move it. If we are in agreement, I will withdraw motion C and Mr. Bellehumeur can tell us what he wants to do with his own motion, which is also under item C.
Mr. Bellehumeur: The motion under item B is the result of unofficial talks we held with the Liberal whip and mostly addresses the concerns we raised on March 28.
However, Mr. Chairman, before speaking to the motion I wish to present, we will have to discuss the issues you raised on March 28th, particularly those contained in section 3. Since this motion alluded to what you said, we will have to clarify what you meant.
Let's begin with point 3 of the House document which is appended to the agenda. It reads as follows:
3. The order of reference does not limit the committee to the actual communiqué, at least in the sense of a piece of paper; it is the "matter of the communiqué" that is referred to the committee.
I think something is wrong. Mr. Chairman, I would like you to enlighten me, especially if we are on the point of passing the motion Mr. Boudria and I drafted.
[English]
The Chairman: Again colleagues, when I spoke on March 28, I guess I never really envisioned that they would come out as guidelines with numbers attached to them. But that's fine, I'm happy to deal with this in a timely way to try to put some order to it.
What I had said - and what I will repeat - is that the Speaker had made a ruling that this was a prima facie case, a privilege. It was in the context of the Speaker's ruling that I spoke. I reminded us that it wasn't a court of law, so what you in fact might have normally considered as rules of evidence didn't necessarily apply. In other words, what I'm giving you is the context of my remarks at the time that I gave them. We weren't interpreting criminal law. It wasn't a commission and didn't have the broad-ranging mandate of a commission. However, we were - and are - a parliamentary committee and are therefore masters of our own committee, as both Mrs. Davidson and Mr. Marleau pointed out.
What I tried to say, in order to put some order to this, was that the matter of the communiqué is what has generated all of... I don't like to use the term ``smoking gun'', but it's the empirical, extrinsic piece of evidence upon which I understand Mr. Hart made a number of allegations. The communiqué was the essence of what I believed to be the matter of privilege that was raised.
.1115
That was the context in which I gave those remarks, and if I can clarify those further,Mr. Bellehumeur, I'm happy to do so. I'm not trying to be cute; I'm just trying to...
[Translation]
Mr. Bellehumeur: Based on what you said, I understand that you repeated paragraphs 1 and 2. The wording is very clear and clearly reflects paragraphs 1 and 2. I conclude from your explanation that we should keep the second part of the paragraph to specify that the committee should concern itself with the matters of the communiqué.
We should eliminate the first part and simply say that matters of the communiqué are the only ones which should be discussed by the committee.
[English]
The Chairman: Mrs. Catterall, please.
Hold on one second. I'm sorry; I didn't realize the clerk was keeping a list. I thought this was a list in relation to the larger subject.
First, we have on the table a motion and we have what I thought was an agreement on that motion. Now you're asking for clarification of what I meant on an aspect of that, and I'm just trying to keep it orderly.
[Translation]
Mr. Bellehumeur: Mr. Chairman, the first part of your paragraph leads to a broad interpretation whereas the second part is restrictive. There is a contradiction in the same paragraph. I don't want to again question the motion Mr. Boudria and myself are presenting, far from it, since the motion says that matters to be discussed have to deal directly with the communiqué. I just want you to tell me if I'm wrong. As you said, paragraph 3, as you propose it, was taken in a totally different context.
[English]
The Chairman: You can't consider 3 without looking at 4, and what I say in 4 is:
- Matters that are directly related to the communiqué are within the purview of the committee.
Mr. Pagtakhan (Winnipeg North): I have a point of order. Just to guide the committee, perhaps if members do have concerns with phrases or clauses within the motion they can propose a subamendment to delete or modify instead of having this informal debate where we keep going around and around. We could debate that motion and that would be the end of the point, and then we could make a conclusion on whether to proceed or not with the amendment.
Ms Catterall (Ottawa West): On the same point of order, if we could have a back-and-forth discussion, I have a helpful suggestion to make, and maybe we could resolve this very quickly.
The Chairman: Mr. Ringma, please.
Mr. Ringma (Nanaimo - Cowichan): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
In a sense I agree with Mr. Bellehumeur that before we can examine either Mr. Bellehumeur's motion or Mr. Boudria's motion we must go through the guidelines proposed by you. In fact, we were doing that yesterday with legal counsel. Although I was prepared in the first instance to argue that number 1 should not be there, I came away yesterday convinced that number 1 is legitimate, because of legal counsel.
.1120
We want to get on with this thing, not keep delaying it. My point is that to adopt a set of guidelines we must first go through that set of guidelines. There's our sequence: in order to have the motions considered, we must first go through the guidelines, and I hope we can do that in a hurry. We have a few little proposals for changes, just as I'm sure the Bloc has, as was expressed byMr. Bellehumeur several minutes ago.
The Chairman: Colleagues, I'm breaking our own rule. I thought there was an agreement, but there isn't an agreement.
Mr. Boudria, can you help me out here?
Mr. Boudria: Mr. Chairman, I thought yesterday that this motion would have satisfied us with one very minor proviso, and I thought we had it. The second sentence of number 3 of your guidelines reads as follows:
[Translation]
- it is the "matter of the communiqué" that is referred to the committee.
I thought our informal conversation had settled the problem: if it was agreed that we were referring to the same communique, Mr. Bellehumeur would be satisfied. That's what I understood from our discussion outside the room yesterday.
But perhaps we should clarify this, because I thought everything had been settled yesterday.
Mr. Bellehumeur: You said there was a time and a place for everything. But that's not the issue.
As well, there are discrepancies between the English and the French versions, which doesn't help. In both paragraphs, 3 and 4, there are translation mistakes in English and in French.
Let's begin with paragraph 3. Don't you agree that when it says:
- 3. The order of reference does not limit the committee to the actual communique:
Mr. Boudria: No. Read the second part of the sentence.
Mr. Bellehumeur:
- it is the "matter of the communique" that is referred to the committee.
[English]
``It is the matter of the same communiqué'', just to ensure that we're talking about strictly that communiqué and whatever is associated with that communiqué, not some other communiqué. I'm not saying there is another communiqué, but that's not the issue. It's to ascertain that we're speaking of the same issue after the colon as we are before the colon in item number 3.
I thought that was the only discrepancy, and if we could maybe have added those one or two words, that would have done it.
Mr. Frazer (Saanich - Gulf Islands): I have a point of order. It strikes me that this discussion is a continuation of ones we've had in the past. It's likely to go on until next week. We haveMr. Kingsley and his group here. Should we not deal with them and let him get on his way?
The Chairman: We have Mr. Hart coming on Tuesday as a witness. I'm a servant of the committee at this point.
Mr. Laurin, you're next on my list.
[Translation]
Mr. Laurin (Joliette): It is clear that if you match paragraph 3 when matched with paragraph 4, is the last paragraph after paragraph 6.
When paragraph 3 is matched with both other paragraphs, only the last part of paragraph 3 makes sense. If you match the first part of paragraph 3 with paragraph 4 and the following one, paragraph 6 doesn't make sense.
If you match the second part of paragraph 3 with paragraph 4 and the last paragraph, your argument stands.
It seems that the first part of paragraph 3 is in contradiction with the second part. So, all we would have to do is eliminate the first part of paragraph 3 so that it is consistent with all the other paragraphs. That would solve the problem.
[English]
The Chairman: I understand, Mr. Laurin. The problem I have right now is Mr. Frazer has raised a point of order on what the order of business is for today. Yesterday we agreed, or so I thought - and I'm in your hands, colleagues; this is your committee and some of you also have to take some responsibility for what we're doing this morning - that there would be a quick disposal of some terms of reference. We did that based on the representation made by the Bloc at the beginning of the week that there was going to be some concurrence on a motion. The Reform Party really didn't have a view one way or another.
.1125
Mr. Ringma: We did not agree and that's the point, Mr. Chairman. This is a bilateral agreement that's going on here and they're outside doing it again, coming up with their own agreement. That is simply not acceptable.
The Chairman: Excuse me, Mr. Ringma. I understand that, and that's why I'm speaking at the moment. The reason is that what I thought we were going to try to do was to put on the floor the essence of at least a consensus.
Since we hadn't heard from Mr. Frazer one way or another after the week, I presumed that there were no valid, significant changes to the essence of my comments two weeks ago. My presumption may be wrong, but in fairness, Jack, I didn't hear any proposals or major changes of your own. We've had informal discussions about the words ``directly related'' and ``relevant''. I want to be fair. I don't know if I'm misrepresenting something here, but I haven't heard any major, hysterical cries that anyone is unhappy or dissatisfied here.
Mr. Frazer: Mr. Chairman, these were comments that you made. They were not presented to us as the parameters within which this committee would operate. We may have some other rules of reference that we would like to propose for consideration by the committee. While we didn't object to your comments, we had not agreed that they were the final aspect of the way the committee would operate. This motion right now is preparing to get that approval; at least, I presume that's where it's going. So we do have some reservations about accepting this.
The Chairman: For the sake of efficiency, would you state the objections? We've been sitting here for eight hours of in camera meetings and we've been in open session. As you know, I spoke before the break so that I could put on the record the predisposition of the chair in attempting to try to resolve this.
In fairness to the chair and to your colleagues, if you have some concerns, put them forward.
Mr. Ringma: We are prepared to do two things here. One, I'll give you a verbal outline of what changes we think should take place in the terms of reference. Secondly, I'll even give it to you in writing today saying here are what we think would be appropriate guidelines for this committee. I'm prepared to do those two things in writing, and they number relatively small changes. They're not wide-ranging.
Mr. Boudria: I have a suggestion, very quickly. Mr. Bellehumeur and I noticed a few words that were different in French and English. We've corrected them to our mutual satisfaction.Mr. Bellehumeur just left, but maybe Mr. Ringma and I can continue for the rest of the meeting to see if we can iron this out and come back at the end of the meeting.
Mr. Ringma: I don't know that it is that simple to iron out, which is why I want to get back -
Mr. Boudria: Well, we can report at the end of the meeting if we were unsuccessful. Can't we try?
Mr. Ringma: - to my original intercession here this morning, which was that before we can consider the motions or the motion, whatever is come up with, we must consider the guidelines one by one, in sequence.
Mr. Boudria: I'll try.
The Chairman: With the greatest respect to my colleagues from the Reform Party, you've had this information for a solid two and a half weeks and have not come forward with some alternatives on the floor of any of these meetings.
Mr. Frazer: Mr. Chairman, it has not been appropriate. It hasn't been discussed. This has only come to a head because we're getting a motion now to adopt this.
The Chairman: Mr. Frazer, I would respectfully disagree. You had notice of those motions.
Mr. Frazer: No, we didn't.
The Chairman: You had notice of the motions two days ago.
Mr. Frazer: We got the motion from Mr. Bellehumeur yesterday.
The Chairman: You had notice that there was going to be a motion presented, because out of respect for the meeting as it began on Tuesday -
Ms Catterall: I have a point of order, Mr. Chairman. It seems to me that the issue is the terms of reference. The Reform Party has indicated that they might want to modify or add to those. It seems to me that the logical thing to do, since they form an integral part of the motion, is to go through them one by one. I happen to agree with Mr. Boudria that the French is not quite as specific and clear as number 3 is in English. That's a simple matter of revising some words. Perhaps it's as simple as doing the same on the others. I just think we should get on with it, see if we agree with 1, if we agree with 2, if we agree with 3.
.1130
The Chairman: Colleagues, the difficulty... I'm sorry to interrupt you, Mrs. Catterall. It is now 11:30 a.m. -
Ms Catterall: We go on with Mr. Kingsley and come back to this when we're finished withMr. Kingsley.
The Chairman: I don't see any other -
[Translation]
Mr. Bellehumeur: We will move that.
On March 28, we discussed the order of reference at length. In fact, discussions lasted at least12 hours.
[English]
The Chairman: Sorry.
[Translation]
Mr. Bellehumeur: This week, the issue is again before us. Members for the Liberals and the Bloc proposed some motions and Reform had nothing to say. But this morning, we will determine what the order of reference will be based on what was proposed on March the 28th. However, Reformers are just beginning to wake up. I think it's too late.
I would like to move the motion and I would like the committee to vote on our amendments to clarify the order of reference. We agreed with the government to make your job easier and to set a clear direction. I am sick and tired of it.
[English]
Ms Catterall: Mr. Chairman, on a point of order, I did make a suggestion and I think you can rule on that point of order. Either we'll proceed in a rational way and get through this or we won't.
[Translation]
Mr. Bellehumeur: We have to solve this issue today, since we will be hearing witnesses on Tuesday.
[English]
The Chairman: Mr. Ringma, I'd like to hear from you before I rule on this point of order.
Mr. Ringma: I agree with the point of order brought up by Ms Catterall that we must go through the guidelines. Until this time we have not assumed that we were discussing the guidelines. The only things we've been discussing are the two motions: Mr. Boudria's motion and the counter-motion by Mr. Bellehumeur. We've been waiting to get that out of the way so that we then discuss the guidelines. There has been no overt effort on the part of the chair or anyone here to say, ``Do you agree with these guidelines?''
Mr. Boudria: Mr. Chairman, with respect, on Tuesday when I proposed subsequent toMr. Bellehumeur's suggestion, I believe, a motion that the guidelines be concurred in...it must have been obvious at that time that we wanted to concur in the guidelines. That's what the motion...
Mr. Frazer: The motion had not been put forward.
Mr. Boudria: I gave notice of that -
Mr. Frazer: When two dogs are fighting it's difficult to get into the fight without getting all bitten up. This is what happened. This is going back and forth and we have no opportunity to intervene.
The Chairman: Okay -
Mr. Boudria: On Tuesday I did give that notice. Of course, we speak to each other for hours and hours in the same day.
Mr. Chairman, if it makes it easier for any or all members - and I don't know if this is helpful to the chair - I have no difficulty with point 1 and point 2, a small amendment to point 3. We could just take five minutes and go down them all and agree with them.
The Chairman: Look, colleagues, we have the Chief Electoral Officer here to do main estimates and we have the hearing beginning on Tuesday.
Mr. Ringma, at the risk of asking this question, do you know how long your intervention would be?
Mr. Ringma: No, I don't, because I do not know what the reaction is going to be either from the chief government whip or from the Bloc. For example -
.1135
The Chairman: Could I ask you to quickly summarize point by point? Before I rule on this point of order, I'm going to take two or three minutes with Mr. Ringma if it's okay with you.
Mr. Ringma: Okay, I'll give you an outline.
The Chairman: Give me an outline of your concerns.
Mr. Bellehumeur and Mr. Boudria, could you listen carefully? It's your motion and I'd like you to listen carefully to Mr. Ringma's comments.
Mr. Ringma: On point 1 of the guidelines we have changed our minds. We were going to object to that, but we changed our minds in light of the legal counsel's testimony yesterday.
Mr. Boudria: Agreed.
Mr. Ringma: Then I ask why point number 2 is entered there in view of Standing Order 108...the terms of reference of this committee.
The Chairman: The only reason it is there is that it was in almost a speech from the chair.
Mr. Ringma: We don't really need it if you examine the terms of reference of this committee or any other standing committee.
The Chairman: Okay, keep going.
Mr. Ringma: Number 3 we can accept.
On number 4 we already had our arguments on relevance so you know - -
The Chairman: And you might move an amendment to that.
Mr. Ringma: In number 5 I would just add a phrase: ``The actions taken by Mr. Jacob in composing or sending out the communiqué are relevant as are the consequences of those actions.''
Finally, on number 6, because of the discussion we had here yesterday I would simply add at the end, after ``a breach of privilege'', ``or contempt of Parliament''.
Those are my points and I'd be very happy to present them in writing.
The Chairman: I don't think we need them in writing now. I have them.
Mr. Ringma: They're brief enough.
The Chairman: Let's get something quite clearly understood. That is the essence of any objections the Reform Party would have, is that correct?
Mr. Ringma: Yes, to the guidelines as proposed by you. But obviously the counter-argument might have to come in. If something else is proposed by the Bloc, then we would have to argue all the changes.
The Chairman: Procedurally here's what I'm proposing, colleagues. There will be a motion by Mr. Boudria. There is an amendment to that motion. We will vote on the amendment unless a further amendment is proposed. We're ready for a vote, as I see it.
Mr. Boudria: Just a second, Mr. Chairman, if I may. I heard what Mr. Ringma suggested, ``determine whether there has been a breach of privilege or contempt'', but only the House can determine contempt.
The Chairman: Recommend, is that the...?
Mr. Boudria: We could still make that finding if there were one. It's implicit anyway because it was told to us yesterday by our legal counsel. They told us yesterday that we in fact determine whether the breach of privilege itself is an act of contempt. We were instructed to that level, so it's implicit. Whether it's in there or not doesn't make any difference to me, but I'll have to let the others say.
There are two minor changes with regard to the translation of number 3. There's also a word in number 4 on the French side that's not in the English, so it would have to be deleted.
The Chairman: Okay.
[Translation]
Mr. Bellehumeur: There could be more. If that's your conclusion, it is not contained in sections A and C, but it is included in the terms of reference.
[English]
The Chairman: All right. Can we do a straw vote? How do you want to do it?
[Translation]
Mr. Bellehumeur: We can add something.
[English]
The Chairman: You two don't agree.
[Translation]
Mr. Bellehumeur: We might agree with the addition of "or contempt of the House" to point 6; we have no problem with that. We can't try to guess everything that's included in the terms of reference, since Mr. Marleau and Mrs. Davidson said yesterday...
[English]
The Chairman: No, I agree.
[Translation]
Mr. Bellehumeur: ...that we may always conclude that there was no breach of privilege or contempt of the House, but that Mr. Hart made an unjustifiable accusation against a member. We can always recommend that the House discipline him. This does not appear any where, but it is still part of our terms of reference. I don't want to add a seventh paragraph to that effect, since it is already implicit in our terms of reference. You said there was no doubt about this.
[English]
The Chairman: All right, colleagues.
Madam Clerk, what's our motion? Where's the motion?
.1140
Mr. Boudria: Mr. Chairman, there may be something here that satisfies General Ringma. In fact, the point he wants to add to number 6 is already in number 4, in the sixth line. It's ``...whether or not Mr. Jacob's actions violated the privileges of the House or were in contempt...'', so it's already there. It may not be necessary to have that argument.
The Chairman: I asked that question and that's what I was told yesterday. I don't know if you remember that.
Mr. Boudria: Are you satisfied with that, Bob?
Mr. Ringma: Yes.
Mr. Boudria: Okay, so we eliminate -
The Chairman: The issue I see from the Reform Party - could I get the attention of the third party for a second? The issue that I see you have an objection to will be the issue of relevancy as opposed to directly related - true or not true?
Mr. Ringma: I've given you several points, Mr. Chairman -
The Chairman: Not that many. With the greatest of respect, I don't see much of a problem with what you said in your suggestions and what I said.
I just want to remind you, colleagues, that it was just a guideline that I spoke from the chair, which we turned into points at the suggestion of Mr. Boudria. There are some translation problems, which I think have been resolved. There's a word missing in the French and the English, which has been resolved.
I heard what you said, Mr. Ringma. I don't have a problem with it as your chair, in listening as to what I said. I think we have a consensus, but I'm looking for your help as to how we should proceed. I've now used up another ten minutes.
Mr. Ringma: I'll make an intercession here as to how to proceed. If I put our suggestions for the guidelines in writing to you and the Bloc does the same, let's examine each other's. Obviously we can't do that this minute. We want to go away. But you have the essence of it already.
The Chairman: Can we vote point by point and do it now?
An hon. member: Let's do that.
Mr. Boudria: I think we've agreed with everything.
The Chairman: The Reform Party may have an amendment on a particular point. If the Bloc and the Liberals have agreed with everything, then they'll just vote positively. Could we get a motion that the guidelines, the first two...?
Dr. Pagtakhan.
Mr. Pagtakhan: I move that the terms of the guidelines be voted on separately.
Motion agreed to.
The Chairman: Everybody sees number 1. Are we agreed on it?
[Translation]
Mr. Bellehumeur: Yes.
[English]
Some hon. members: Agreed.
The Chairman: On number 2...
Mr. Speaker (Lethbridge): I move that number 2 be deleted.
[Translation]
Mr. Bellehumeur: Agreed.
[English]
Ms Catterall: The Standing Order is already the same.
[Translation]
Mr. Bellehumeur: If we talk about everything we don't want to include, it will be a long list.
[English]
The Chairman: Is number 2 agreed on?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
The Chairman: We'll move to number 3.
[Translation]
Mr. Bellehumeur: I already proposed a motion. Now it's your turn.
Mr. Boudria: It doesn't matter.
Mr. Bellehumeur: Go ahead!
[English]
Mr. Boudria: In English it should be ``the matter of this communiqué''. Maybe it's obvious that we're referring to the same communiqué, but it should be ``this communiqué''.
In French it's a little bit -
[Translation]
Mr. Bellehumeur: There are notes in English.
Mr. Boudria: Yes, there are notes. I'll begin with the French, if you don't mind.
- L'ordre de renvoi oblige le comité à s'en tenir...
...au communique lui-même: c'est plutôt la question...
Mr. Bellehumeur: "C'est la question"...
Mr. Boudria: We would eliminate the word "plutôt".
- c'est la question de ce même communiqué dont a été saisi le comité.
[English]
Mr. Boudria: Let me try it in English. The order of reference -
[Translation]
Mr. Laurin: The word would stay.
An honourable member: That's what he wants.
Mr. Laurin: All right, keep it.
Mr. Boudria: It's essential for the English translation. It is implicit in French, but there is no equivalent in English.
.1145
[English]
In English, ``The order of reference limits the committee to the actual communiqué...'' That's all right.
Ms Catterall: Take out ``actual''.
Mr. Boudria: Okay, ``to the communiqué,'' - you remove the word ``actual'' - ``at least in the sense of a piece of paper: it is the `matter of this communiqué...'''. This is just to ensure that the second part after the colon refers to the same as the first.
Ms Catterall: It's putting it in the positive instead of the negative.
The Chairman: Now, on that point -
[Translation]
Mr. Ringma: In French, the only change is that the word "exclusivement" would be dropped.
Mr. Bellehumeur: Yes, only the word "exclusivement" and the negative phraseology are eliminated.
[English]
Mr. Ringma: The proposed change totally changes the impact or the intent of item 3. The order of reference as it reads says ``The order of reference does not limit the committee...''. It has now been changed to ``The order of reference limits the committee...''.
The Chairman: Is that right, Don?
Mr. Ringma: That's 180 degrees.
[Translation]
Mr. Bellehumeur: That's not true, Mr. Chairman, because even in English, the second part of the paragraph dealt directly with the communique. Even in English it wasn't clear. I believe that the substance of the paragraph is contained in the second part and we want the entire paragraph to be consistent with that idea. In other words, it is the "matter of the communiqué" that is referred to the committee.
[English]
Mr. Boudria: You see, the second part indicates that it's the matter that is referred to the committee.
Mr. Speaker: Couldn't we make a simple sentence out of number 3, just one simple sentence? I don't know whether I can create a simple sentence, but the object is that the order of reference of the committee is to deal with the matter of the communiqué. That's basically what we're asking ourselves to do.
The Chairman: I don't have a problem with that.
Ms Catterall: That's very good.
Mr. Speaker: I'll try this again. The order of reference of the committee -
The Chairman: Limits the committee to the matter of the communiqué referred to the committee.
Mr. Speaker: No, the order of reference of the committee is to deal with the matter or matters of the communiqué.
The Chairman: That's fine.
Mr. Boudria: Can you repeat it?
Mr. Speaker: The order of reference of the committee is to deal with the matter of the communiqué.
The Chairman: I don't have a problem with that. I know I'm not supposed to have a problem with the reference.
Mr. Speaker: Matter or matters of the communiqué.
[Translation]
Mr. Bellehumeur: That's what it says. Mr. Boudria said...
[English]
The Chairman: Hold on, colleagues. Let's be respectful. If we remove 3 and put in their 3 and we all agree to it, there's no big deal, is there? Is that all right?
[Translation]
Mr. Bellehumeur: Mr. Chairman, based on my understanding of the translation, I could go along with that.
.1150
However, there still are discrepancies between the English and the French versions.
Next Tuesday, I would not want to have a different translation from what I've just heard. And that is exactly what Mr. Boudria and I suggested for paragraph 3. I don't understand why we can't agree on paragraph 3. Everyone has the wording in front of them.
Mr. Boudria: If the French version were based on the English version, the committee's order of reference would deal with the matter of the communique.
[English]
The Chairman: That's what I understood. Are we agreed on that? I see nodding in the Reform Party. I see Mrs. Parrish nodding.
[Translation]
Mr. Boudria: Let me repeat: "The order of reference of the committee is to deal with the matter of the communiqué".
[English]
In English it's ``The order of reference of the committee is to deal with the matter of the communiqué.''
[Translation]
Mr. Bellehumeur: Perhaps we should add the word "must" to make sure that everything is clear.
[English]
The Chairman: No, no. I think we all agree.
[Translation]
Mr. Bellehumeur: That's what it would have read, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Langlois (Bellechasse): Those are your words.
Mr. Bellehumeur: Those are your words. So there is a certain...
[English]
The Chairman: Don't get into what I said, because I said it did not. I said it in the opposite way, but let's not get me involved.
Ms Catterall: We seem to be tightening down number 3. I think it might relieve some anxiety if we linked 3 and 4 together into one. Say, in fact, we said ``it is the `matter of the communiqué''' or the slightly revised words.
The Chairman: I'll read exactly what I have. I think Ms Catterall is on to something here. Why don't we say this, colleagues: ``The order of reference of the committee is to deal with the matter of the communiqué.'' Matters that are directly related to the communiqué are within the purview of the committee, which is 4. If we just take this and put it with it, which is the way it was actually written, I think that would resolve it.
[Translation]
Mr. Bellehumeur: We just have to eliminate it.
[English]
The Chairman: Take it out? No, because you still want to say that it's referring to the... It doesn't matter, because the whole reference is the communiqué.
Do you have a problem with deleting the whole thing? Mr. Maingot doesn't see a problem with that either, so delete it, because it's all referring to the communiqué anyway. Are you agreed with that? Delete it.
Mr. Ringma: We're going to delete 3, now.
The Chairman: We'll delete 3; we don't have a 3. Don, do you agree?
[Translation]
Mr. Langlois: Are there any unresolved issues from the 28th?
Mr. Bellehumeur: At one point, surely you stopped talking on the 28th.
[English]
The Chairman: Are we agreed? Okay, 3 doesn't exist.
Mr. Ringma: If we delete 3, then we have to come back to the matter in 4 here of relevancy or ``directly related''.
The Chairman: Okay, so now on 4, as I understand it here, there is agreement.
You have an amendment on 4?
[Translation]
Mr. Bellehumeur: No, no.
[English]
The Chairman: You don't agree on 4?
[Translation]
Mr. Bellehumeur: In paragraph 4, we would like to drop the word "également" in the French version because it does not appear in the English version. He should not try to propose amendments, because it won't work.
[English]
The Chairman: That's fine. I understand that. But there's a consensus on 4, except that the Reform Party wishes to move an amendment to 4. They have always objected to 4; they've always had a problem with 4. If you have some suggestions we're happy to receive them, and they'll be voted on.
Mr. Frazer: Without getting into some extra tune-ups, Mr. Chairman, what I propose is the substitution of the word ``relevant'' for ``directly related''. I refer to the Concise Oxford Dictionary definition of ``relevant'', which means ``bearing on or having reference to the matter in hand''. It strikes me that this is exactly descriptive of what we're supposed to do.
.1155
The Chairman: Now, just so we get this clear, we're voting on these item by item. We've passed 1 and 2, 3 is gone, and 4 is on the table, colleagues. Number 4 reads as it is, with the changes in the French text. Is that correct? So we understand what we're voting on.
Mr. Ringma: The only change in the French text is
[Translation]
eliminating the word "également"?
[English]
The Chairman: That's right. Okay. I understand in a straw poll way that there's consensus on 4.
Mr. Frazer has a problem. You would like to move an amendment on 4. Let's put your amendment and we'll vote on the amendment.
Mr. Frazer: I move that number 4, or what was number 4, be amended to delete ``directly related'' and replace it with the word ``relevant''.
The Chairman: On that question on the amendment, are you ready to vote on that? You're not ready to vote on it?
Ms Catterall: I just want to comment briefly. ``Relevant'' is one of those difficult words in law and in anything else. It's like ``significant''. It can mean anything you want it to mean, virtually. ``Directly related'' is clear and precise. Even ``directly related'' is sometimes going to give the chair a problem of interpretation.
The Chairman: That's right.
Ms Catterall: ``Relevant'' is too wishy-washy. It would make our work even more difficult.
The Chairman: I think I smell where the room is at. Can we have a vote on the amendment? The amendment is to remove the words ``directly related'' and replace them with the word ``relevant''.
Amendment negatived
The Chairman: Now on to the motion.
Motion agreed to
Mr. Boudria: They have an amendment. Mr. Ringma has an amendment to that.
The Chairman: Number 5 is:
- 5. The actions taken by Mr. Jacob in composing or sending out the communiqué are relevant.
Mr. Speaker: Mr. Chairman, you can't make the judgment.
The Chairman: No, no, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker: Put it before the committee. Let's discuss it and make a judgment. Okay?
The Chairman: I am not being negative. I'm trying to give you... I spoke those words. I don't have a problem with it. I am saying, positively, that I'm supporting you, if you listen carefully.
Mr. Speaker: But, Mr. Chairman, on a point of order, to get business done, you've got to stay out of the business.
The Chairman: I'm trying to stay out of the business, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker: Place the business before us.
The Chairman: It's there.
Mr. Speaker: Let us discuss it, let us vote, and let us get on with things here. We've just got ourselves dug into a hole that is too deep.
Mr. Ringma: We're nearly out of it.
Mr. Speaker: Take the amendment.
The Chairman: It's taken.
Mr. Speaker: Ask for discussion.
The Chairman: On the question of the amendment, do you have a problem with the amendment?
[Translation]
Mr. Langlois: I want to make sure I understand the meaning and the consequence of that proposal. What exactly does Mr. Speaker mean? What's his point?
Yesterday, when I asked questions of Mr. Marleau's, you rightly asked me to be more specific and I told you exactly what the point of my questions was. But here we have Mr. Speaker who is trying to propose an amendment which I just don't understand. Perhaps he thought about it for days and spoke to his colleagues about it. There have been protracted negotiations between the Official Opposition and the government, but suddently Mr. Speaker is presenting us with a jack in the box amendment which I don't understand. I want do know what the point of his amendment is. What, in his opinion, does it change? What does it add to the motion?
.1200
[English]
The Chairman: Mr. Ringma has put the amendment and has explained why. You have a problem with it, so you'll vote against it, I assume, when it comes to the table for voting.
Mr. Boudria.
Mr. Boudria: Again, there is a difficulty in the French text of this. The new words, which would say ``The actions taken by Mr. Jacob in composing,'' you are saying to the committee are relevant. The new words, ``as are the consequences'' - in other words, to go through the whole thing and identify what it means. Having said that communiqué is relevant, the consequences of having it sent are also relevant. That's what it means.
An hon. member: Oui.
Mr. Boudria: All right.
[Translation]
The consequences of having done something are as important as the action itself.
Mr. Bellehumeur: It's wider.
[English]
Mr. Boudria: There is a problem, though, en français.
[Translation]
In French, it says:
- 5.La façon dont M. Jacob s'y est pris pour composer ou diffuser le communiqué relève du
mandat du comité.
Mr. Bellehumeur: What consequences? The consequences of his action?
Mr. Langlois: But that does not deal directly with the communiqué. It deals with the political process. That's what they're trying to achieve.
M. Bellehumeur: That means we are not dealing with the communiqué, Mr. Boudria, if we are dealing with the consequences.
M. Boudria: I'm sorry, Mr. Chairman, but the French version of motion number 5 is different from the English version. It's completely different.
M. Bellehumeur: Well, we'll eliminate it. We simply have to drop it.
M. Boudria: I'm certainly not a translator and I don't pretend to be one, but if I take the English version and translate it into French, it would more or less read as follows: "Les gestes de M. Jacob, en composant et en diffusant le communiqué, sont pertinents comme en sont les conséquences". That's how I would translate the English version, but that's not what the French says.
M. Langlois: If it doesn't make sense, just delete it.
M. Bellehumeur: I move that we strike paragraph 5, as we did paragraphs 2 and 3. It's implicit.
[English]
Mr. Boudria: I don't care.
The Chairman: There's an amendment on the floor. Are you ready to vote on that amendment or not? Mr. Speaker has put an amendment on the floor and I assume they want us to vote on it.
Mr. Ringma: It was my amendment.
The Chairman: Mr. Ringma, sorry, I know that.
Mr. Pagtakhan: Mr. Chairman, a clarification may be of aid from Mr. Maingot.
The Chairman: No, let's not bother him right now.
Mr. Pagtakhan: The way I read paragraph 5, with or without the amendment, would be the same. Therefore, on that basis, knowing redundancy is not good, I will vote against the amendment.
However, before I do that, I would like to know whether...because I am persuaded from the briefing from Mr. Marleau and Ms Davidson yesterday that any disciplinary measures or remedies as a part of our deliberations, after a finding of fact, are inherent in our authority. If that is an inherent authority, then it would be redundant to add that amendment. I see no purpose for that. But I would like to ask Mr. Maingot if I am right in my interpretation.
Mr. Maingot: Certainly, and as part of your authority, in your recommendations you could decide whether in your view the House should take action with respect to this. There is no question about that.
Mr. Pagtakhan: That's right.
Mr. Maingot: But with respect to paragraph 5, paragraph 5 is already taken in your general mandate of looking at the order of reference. The order of reference includes that already, in my view.
Mr. Pagtakhan: So if I were to follow my own analogies about redundancy, there is no reason for item 5 at all.
Mr. Maingot: From a strictly objective point of view, there isn't.
Mr. Pagtakhan: And since you will be our counsel in the future, henceforth, and our adviser -
The Chairman: He doesn't want you to rely on him too much, but he does give you his view, Mr. Pagtakhan.
.1205
Mr. Pagtakhan: Then I am persuaded by the argument of the Bloc that we delete item 5.
The Chairman: All right. Are we ready for the question on the amendment?
Mr. Ringma.
Mr. Ringma: If there appears to be consensus that we eliminate number 5 entirely, I'll withdraw the amendment.
Mr. Boudria: Agreed.
The Chairman: Are the amendments withdrawn? Is number 5 withdrawn?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
The Chairman: It's agreed. All right.
Next is number 6. Mr. Ringma, please.
Mr. Ringma: Given the wording, that the committee's duty is to, etc., I would still like to add the words, which Mr. Boudria says are implicit in the old 4, ``or contempt of Parliament''.
The Chairman: That's an amendment. Number 6 is on the table.
[Translation]
M. Bellehumeur: No, it's not the same thing.
[English]
The Chairman: Excuse me just one moment, please, colleagues. Six is on the table, and there's an amendment to that.
Ms Catterall: I would like to hear the objections to it.
The Chairman: Mr. Bellehumeur, you have an objection on the amendment. Do you wish to put...?
[Translation]
M. Bellehumeur: Yes, because the same thing is repeated in paragraph 4. It says: "Violated the privileges of the House or were in contempt of the House". Paragraph 6 should read:
- The committee's duty is to establish the facts that surround this matter and determine whether
there has been a breach of privilege or contempt of the House.
If there was an amendment, it should simply say that paragraph 6 be struck.
[English]
Mr. Boudria: I don't care.
The Chairman: Great. We'll just carry on.
Mr. Boudria: I don't care. Fine.
The Chairman: I don't care either, but I'm just your chairman, as Mr. Speaker has reminded us.
Mr. Ringma.
Mr. Ringma: I was going to propose another amendment, that we scrap the whole thing - just in jest.
The Chairman: Mr. Jacob, what did you write this for in the first place?
There's an amendment on the floor.
Mr. Ringma: It's that we add to number 6, ``or contempt of Parliament''.
The Chairman: Are we ready for a vote on that amendment?
Mrs. Parrish.
Mrs. Parrish (Mississauga West): I'd like to hear Mr. Ringma explain why he wants to add it. If, as Mr. Bellehumeur says, it's redundant, why is he objecting? Let's get to the point at which -
Mr. Ringma: It's because of the lead-in in number 4: ``Matters that are'' - we were going to say ``relevant'' - ``directly related to the communiqué are within the purview of the committee''. That says one thing, but when you get to number 6, it says ``The committee's duty is to establish the facts that surround this matter''. It's a different introduction, so it is in a sense for greater certainty.
Mrs. Parrish: My understanding from Ms Davidson yesterday was that these were two different categories. She kept referring to them separately. Contempt of Parliament and breach of privilege were two different issues. So I'm going to support the amendment.
The Chairman: Okay. You're supporting the amendment.
Mrs. Parrish: Yes.
The Chairman: Okay. Are you ready for the vote on the amendment?
[Translation]
M. Bellehumeur: Why are we voting? Didn't we decide to strike it?
[English]
The Chairman: On the amendment.
[Translation]
M. Bellehumeur: Isn't it being struck?
[English]
The Chairman: No.
[Translation]
Mr. Boudria: It's because it really changes...
[English]
The Chairman: No, no. Excuse me. Mr. Ringma did not change his mind. He has proposed an amendment. It's a valid amendment. We're discussing the amendment right now.
Mr. Boudria: If I understand it correctly, number 4 refers to what's in the purview of the committee, and it's determined that the issues of privilege and contempt are within the purview of the committee.
Number 6 refers to the duty of the committee, and it seems to me that if those two items in number 4 are within the purview of the committee, they should be within the duty of the committee in terms of number 6. This time I'm more persuaded by the argument of General Ringma. Maybe I can draw it to your attention and go through it again.
.1210
Number 4 refers to those things that are in the purview of the committee. Both privilege and contempt are deemed to be the purview of our committee.
Number 6 states what our duties are. If it's our purview under number 4 to examine the issue of privilege and contempt, then surely under number 6 it would be our duty to report under both those rubrics. That's why I'm persuaded that if number 6 is to be there at all, both should be in. Alternatively, if number 6 were to disappear, it would be implicit that both privilege and contempt would be of equal weight. But as long as number 6 is there, both matters should be in it or not at all.
The Chairman: All right. Could we just agree to have one person from the Bloc now respond.
[Translation]
M. Bellehumeur: Am I being delegated?
[English]
The Chairman: You're delegated. Go ahead.
[Translation]
M. Bellehumeur: I don't agree with what you just said, Mr. Boudria, but if we had to live with what you suggest, we would have to add a few words in French, just to be consistent, otherwise it doesn't say quite the same thing.
It's like the conclusion, although I don't really see what the difference is between a mandate and a duty. Considering the differences you mentioned, the committee's mandate and duty are more or less the same thing.
An honourable member: Our duty is to write up a mandate.
M. Bellehumeur: But if we had to keep paragraph 6, it should read as follows:
- 6.The committee's duty is to establish the facts that surround this matter and determine
whether, in its opinion, there has been a breach of privilege or contempt of the House.
Mr. Boudria: "Whether there has been a breach of privilege or contempt of the House".
[English]
Then to be consistent in English - maybe I can just have the attention of General Ringma for a minute - we would have to say the committee's duty is to establish the facts that surround this matter and determine whether there has been, in its opinion - in its opinion - a breach of privilege. Of course, that's quite true because it's the House that makes the final determination.
Mr. Ringma: I can't object to that.
Mr. Boudria: Okay - in its opinion, a breach of privilege or contempt of the House. Then we have it the same in English and in French and in both cases it refers to the two possible scenarios.
[Translation]
M. Bellehumeur: That's redundant, but it doesn't matter.
Mr. Boudria: Mr. Chairman,
[English]
we've agreed now.
The Chairman: Okay.
Mr. Boudria: In case our clerk or somebody is jotting this down, in English we would just add to the last sentence so that it would read this way - the new number 6, as it used to be called:
- The committee's duty is to establish the facts that surround this matter and to determine
whether, in its opinion, there has been a breach of privilege or contempt of the House.
In French, it would read:
- 6.The committee's duty is to establish the facts that surround this matter and to determine
whether, in its opinion, there has been a breach of privilege or contempt of the House.
I think if we do it that way, we're both agreeable.
The only words Mr. Bellehumeur wants to add are the words ``in its opinion''.
Mr. Ringma: I can agree to that. That's not a problem. The only very fine point here is that we've talked about Parliament and now you've changed that to House.
Mr. Boudria: No, it has to be the House.
Mr. Ringma: The House it is. Good. We're agreed.
The Chairman: Are we agreed? Everybody's smiling.
.1215
The last part...
[Translation]
Mr. Laurin: I don't want to forget anything but if we adopt the motion, the first paragraph wouldn't make sense any more. We wouldn't be adopting your wording any more.
It says:
- Guidelines proposed by the Chairman for the committee's consideration of the
issue - Thursday, March 28, 1996
[English]
Mr. Langlois: As rephrased by the committee.
The Chairman: We know that. That's implicit.
The last paragraph has to be included as part of the motion anyway.
You have no objections to the last paragraph, do you, Mr. Ringma?
Mr. Ringma: The last paragraph of what?
The Chairman: There's not a number 6 any more. There's just the last paragraph. We concurred with that. Those are my feelings as your chair on the rulings I'll be making.
Mr. Ringma: I think you're entitled as chair to express your opinion. It's not part of the -
The Chairman: No, but I was giving you guidelines. Mr. Boudria implicitly put that agreement as a motion so that we could conduct ourselves by it. We were all agreeing to it; it's a reference.
It would effectively become a number, Ms Carrière.
Dr. Pagtakhan.
Mr. Pagtakhan: My suggestion is to delete the paragraph and give the chair more latitude in his feelings in the future, subject only to the will of the whole committee.
The Chairman: No, no.
Dr. Pagtakhan, with the greatest respect, we were at this for eight hours in our in camera discussions, and this was -
Mr. Boudria: Why don't we just leave that last thing there? Is it just something for the chair to utilize to guide itself?
The Chairman: That's right. I underscored it to everybody, and I'm advising you in advance about the direction in which I'm intending to conduct this committee. We all agreed to it.
Mr. Ringma, when I say ``we'', I'd like to know if you have some problems with those comments.
Mr. Frazer, I'm not trying to sandbag you here -
Mr. Ringma: No, I have a little bit of a problem in now including it as a new part of the guideline.
Mr. Boudria: Why don't we just leave it as a footnote, the way it is now?
Mr. Ringma: Leaving it as it is I can accept.
Mr. Speaker: Mr. Chairman, as a committee we agree on terms of reference, and we've done that already. I believe we've now concluded the terms of reference.
Now to put in this sort of an emotional...or your own terms of reference... As a chairman, we would expect you...because what is said in that bottom paragraph is the terms of reference.
The Chairman: Unfortunately, you weren't here, Mr. Speaker, but these guidelines became these two pages. Ms Carrière took them and put in the points. That's all we have.
Mr. Speaker: I'm just saying that -
The Chairman: Anyway, I don't care.
Mrs. Catterall.
Mr. Speaker: The things we've agreed on already...and what is said at the bottom is repetition. They are your guidelines, as our chairman.
Mr. Ringma: Do we now have agreement on number 6?
The Chairman: Yes, number 6 is agreed to.
Mr. Ringma: Is it solid?
The Chairman: As amended, number 6 was agreed to.
Ms Catterall: I do think the last thing we have to do now is deal with the motion presented by Mr. Bellehumeur, that the committee adopt these as its rules of conduct for its hearings on this matter.
In my view, Mr. Chair, the footnote is unnecessary, because if we adopt this motion - as we can in a minute, I think - it is now the committee adopting these as the rules of conduct, which of course will guide the chair and -
The Chairman: Terrific. I think that's what Mr. Speaker was trying to say.
Mr. Bellehumeur's motion was...no, we've adopted it.
A voice: No.
The Chairman: No?
Mr. Boudria: We've got the covering motion, which binds all of this.
.1220
The Chairman: So who's got that?
Mr. Boudria: I don't care.
The Chairman: Didn't we just do it point by point?
Mr. Boudria: What's the score with the last paragraph?
The Chairman: It's agreed. Oh, the last paragraph is out. It was there...it doesn't matter.
Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker: Mr. Chairman, I move that we accept the guidelines as agreed upon today.
The Chairman: As amended.
Mr. Speaker: As amended.
Mr. Boudria: May I read my motion into the record? Mr. Chairman, I move that the rules of conduct defining the parameters of the order of reference concerning only the matters directly related to the communique, as proposed by the chair of the committee at the March -
The Chairman: Mr. Speaker is on the right track here, I think. He just said it.
[Translation]
Mr. Bellehumeur: We were looking at the details; the notice of motion we tabled is whatMr. Boudria is reading. It refers to what you said on March 28 and which has just been amended.
We have to pass this motion. Otherwise, the other guidelines we have adopted... Are we ever going to get out of this quagmire?
[English]
The Chairman: Okay.
[Translation]
Mr. Bellehumeur: No, no, Mr. Boudria. You've given a notice of motion. If we don't adopt it...
[English]
The Chairman: Hold it. Mr. Boudria.
Mr. Boudria: Can I just read this into the record completely, with the amendments of this morning? It may satisfy.
The Chairman: Let's just see if it works.
Mr. Boudria: Okay. That the rules of conduct defining the parameters of the order of reference concerning only the matter directly related to the communique, as proposed by the chair of the committee at the March 28, 1996, meeting, as amended April 18, 1996, be the only rules to guide the work of the committee.
I suppose the word ``only'' means we won't have the Standing Orders.
Mrs. Catterall: We have to have the Standing Orders. We can't abolish the Standing Orders.
Mr. Boudria: It would be ``their rules''. Remove the word ``only'', because that would mean the Standing Orders wouldn't apply.
The Chairman: Mr. Ringma. Let's get a motion. Do we have a motion?
Mr. Ringma: I'd like to discuss the motion by asking whether we can find a sentence to describe what we've done in the last hour, saying that this committee be guided by the agreements we've just made this morning.
[Translation]
Mr. Bellehumeur: I don't know about you, but I'm tired.
[English]
The Chairman: Do you have something you want to put in case there's a way to resolve this?
[Translation]
Mr. Bellehumeur: Mr. Chairman, we've reached an agreement. We've been working on this for hours. I was willing to go along because we were working on your proposals; you did not ask that they be used as formal guidelines.
But now we are debating the motion. To my knowledge, the Reform Party has not given a notice of motion. A motion is before us and we are ready to amend it to reflect exactly what was discussed this morning, that is, to add "as amended" after "March 28, 1996".
I am even willing to strike the word "only", because we cannot be in breach of the Standing Orders. I would like to vote on the rest of the motion as put forward and amended by Mr. Boudria.
[English]
Mr. Pagtakhan: I have a point of order, Mr. Chairman. We have a notice of motion printed and circulated and stated by Mr. Boudria: that the rules of conduct proposed by the chair of the committee of the meeting of March 28, 1996, be concurred in.
What we have done in the intervening phase between this notice, which we received in advance, and this point is we have come to a process of consensus development. We have agreed on a set of guidelines. My suggestion would be to say that the rules of conduct proposed by the chair of the committee at the meeting of March 28, 1996, and now amended, be concurred in.
The Chairman: I think that's what Mr. Boudria's motion is.
Mr. Pagtakhan: Yes, exactly, but let's now amend it. We have just agreed.
The Chairman: That's right.
.1225
[Translation]
Mr. Bellehumeur: Yes, that's what Mr. Boudria did.
[English]
The Chairman: No, that's what Mr. Boudria said.
Mr. Ringma, Mr. Speaker, are we agreed on this now as amended or not? Are you ready for the question of Mr. Boudria's motion?
Mr. Ringma: I'm not sure. How is it amended now?
The Chairman: The guidelines were just amended. They have been amended by...
Mr. Pagtakhan: Mr. Chairman, to make it simple, my suggestion is, if there is still a feeling of uncertainty, that we reread every single item now as amended.
The Chairman: Which is what Mr. Boudria... Let me read this and then we'll have a vote.
[Translation]
Mr. Bellehumeur: I can read his proposed motion, since I was proposing the same thing. He just updated it. It's a common proposal.
[English]
The Chairman: Please listen carefully, everybody, because we're going to vote on this.
[Translation]
Mr. Bellehumeur:
- That the rules of conduct defining the parameters of the order of reference concerning only
matters directly related to the communique, as proposed by the Chair of the committee at the
March 28, 1996 meeting, and as amended at the April 18, 1996 meeting, be the rules to guide the
work of the committee.
The Chairman: Are we ready for the question?
Motion agreed to: yeas 5; nays 1
The Chairman: Is there any other business? Yes, Mrs. Parrish.
Mrs. Parrish: I notice that Mr. Kingsley has left.
The Chairman: As your chairman, I quietly dealt with it, with the clerk.
Mrs. Parrish: I understand that. My understanding is that some of what he wanted to report and request of us had a time limit on it. Will we be able to reschedule him at a very early date?
The Chairman: Which was the time-sensitive part? On the estimates?
Mrs. Parrish: No.
The Chairman: He was here for estimates today.
Mrs. Parrish: Strictly?
The Chairman: Strictly estimates. The other matters are our top priority and he's already scheduled for that.
Mrs. Parrish: All right, good. Thank you.
The Chairman: Colleagues, I'd like to canvas the room quickly. Are there any other matters that need to come before today's meeting?
[Translation]
Mr. Langlois: Are we going to address Dr. McWhinney's concern?
[English]
The Chairman: Dr. McWhinney is coming. Do you want to amend your motion?
[Translation]
Mr. Langlois: Yes, as you indicated, I think the first person we should hear from after Mr. Hart and Mr. Jacob is the expert, Dr. McWhinney.
[English]
The Chairman: No. I thought we would have Mr. Hart and Mr. Jacob in the same week.
So it's Messrs Hart and Jacob next week. I don't think you need a motion for this, but if there is a general consensus, the consensus is that Professor McWhinney also be invited to appear. I understand that was your wish. We've spoken to him, and I report to all of you that he has agreed that he would be available for a short appearance before the committee.
Ms Catterall and then Mrs. Parrish.
.1230
Ms Catterall: I would like to suggest, Mr. Chair, now that we have agreed on terms of reference for the committee's work, that you convene a meeting of the steering committee. Then when we look further at what other witnesses say - accepting that we've all agreed Mr. McWhinney would be a helpful witness - we can get ahead with our work. The steering committee should meet next week to determine other witnesses.
[Translation]
Mr. Bellehumeur: It will be the standing committee, since I don't want to sit in camera; I want our meeting to be open. There is no problem in discussing witnesses, but it should be done at the standing committee.
[English]
The Chairman: There's no agreement on the steering committee then. I don't think he's agreed.
Yes, Ms Catterall.
Ms Catterall: I think that's something you do as chair.
The Chairman: I'll try to do it as chair, but if I can't get us a meeting... I've taken your suggestion. I will attempt to have a steering committee meeting.
Ms Catterall: I'd like to clear this up, because of course the steering committee has to finally approve, amend, change. I don't see any reason why the steering committee can't clear out the underbrush and maybe -
The Chairman: We have tried -
[Translation]
Mr. Bellehumeur: No Bloc members will show up; we want to discuss the matter in this committee.
Mr. Langlois: If the steering committee meets, we will debate the matter here. The Bloc will do it again. There is no point having a steering committee meeting...
Mr. Bellehumeur: Mr. Chairman, I said this before and I repeat it: if you decide to hold a steering committee meeting, the Bloc will not show up. We are not going to sit in camera.
Mrs. Catterall: Why?
Mr. Bellehumeur: Because.
Mrs. Catterall: The steering committee obviously wants meetings to be open. We don't have to sit behing close doors.
[English]
The Chairman: Ms Catterall, I'm going to jump in. I hear your suggestion. I will try to convene a meeting of the steering committee. I've also heard what your problem is.
Mrs. Parrish, please.
Mrs. Parrish: My problem is more mechanical. You've got a whole bunch of notices of motion before you. The one that seems to be under discussion is number 3, Mr. McWhinney. The notice of motion is to ask him to join the committee. We've already had Mr. Maingot's position. So I think this motion has to be either withdrawn -
The Chairman: I think Mr. Langlois did that.
Mrs. Parrish: - or altered to say they would like Mr. McWhinney to be a witness.
The Chairman: That's fine.
Mr. Langlois, that was implicit, but I agree with Mrs. Parrish that I haven't formally entertained it.
[Translation]
Mr. Langlois: Perhaps I won't make the motion, since everyone agrees they want to hearDr. McWhinney, unless we want to go further after hearing from Mr. Jacob.
[English]
The Chairman: He gave a notice of motion. It hasn't fermented.
We're adjourned.